|
NYT Burned Again By Granting Anonymity To “Officials”
NYT, Dec 12 2015: U.S. Visa Process Missed San Bernardino Wife’s Zealotry on Social Media
WASHINGTON — Tashfeen Malik, who with her husband carried out the massacre in San Bernardino, Calif., passed three background checks by American immigration officials as she moved to the United States from Pakistan. None uncovered what Ms. Malik had made little effort to hide — that she talked openly on social media about her views on violent jihad.
She said she supported it. And she said she wanted to be a part of it.
American law enforcement officials said they recently discovered those old — and previously unreported — postings as they pieced together the lives of Ms. Malik and her husband, Syed Rizwan Farook, trying to understand how they pulled off the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil since Sept. 11, 2001.
Reuters, Dec 16, 2015: FBI director: San Bernardino shooters never expressed public support for jihad on social media
FBI Director James Comey said on Wednesday that there remains no evidence the couple who massacred 14 people in San Bernardino, California, on December 2 were part of an organized cell or had any contact with overseas militant groups.
Syed Rizwan Farook, 28, and Tashfeen Malik, 29, expressed support for "jihad and martyrdom" in private communications but never did so on social media, Comey said at a press conference in New York City.
The false NYT report was used by various interested politicians and bureaucrats to demand a stop to U.S. immigration, stricter visa vetting, back-doors to communications, giving social media sides some sort of police function and so on. The same happened when at first false reports emerged that the attackers in Paris had used encryption to communicate with each other. They actually used open SMS messages.
The NYT needs to publish how the false report found its way into the paper. Did it not crosscheck its sources?
It needs to burn the "American law enforcement officials" who gave it the false information by publishing their names and motives.
Without doing that its its readership will have to classify any other NYT report based on unnamed "officials" - just like some bloggers already do – as likely false.
2 dec. 2015, San Bernardino shootings. Long…sorry…
8.00 – 9.00? Conference begins. “Farook was wearing a button-down shirt and a long beard.” 1
abitrarily: 10.00: “After the first hour” Farook gets up and leaves, quietly. Ppl don’t notice immediately he is no longer there. “Left papers and jacket.” 1
Interval between departure and return as an assassin. “It was unclear how much time elapsed between the time Farook left the party and returned. The chief said time ranges he has been given have been as little as 10 minutes and as much as half an hour, but “I don’t know if that’s true.” 3
10.50 – 10.55 or so. The convener announces a 5 min. break in the conference. (Some ppl were in the bathroom when the shooting began; one at least was on the patio.) 1
close to 11.00. “He returned to the meeting about 11 a.m.” 1 His (+ wife’s?) attire is described in different ways, ski mask, black mask, tactical gear, cargo pants,etc. extra note: 6
10.59 Opened fire. 2
11.04 or so. The shooting lasted 4 mins. “Police arrive 4 minutes after the first 911 calls.” (no link) “Four minutes after the shooting had started, more people in tactical gear came rushing into the room with their guns drawn. “Police!” one said.” 1 “The perpetrators departed the scene before police arrived. The couple fled in a rented SUV.” 2
11.14. “At 11:14 am, the SB Fire Department made a Twitter post about an emergency on the 1300 block of Waterman Avenue” 2
> Very brief event. Times given are difficult to fit into a workable scenario; yet we must of course allow 5 mins. here or there. I have not been able to find out where the SUV (Black Ford Expedition. Utah plates) was parked (ppl assume at the parking in front.) One person did see the SUV leave, but ??
11.00 to 12.00 “By noon, at least one of those co-workers had told investigators that he believed one of the shooters could be Farook.” 1
“A person in the building who knew Farook and identified him by name expressed some concern over his behavior prior to the event and the way that he left. The police chief said officers quickly learned that Farook had rented a vehicle similar to the suspects’ vehicle and followed up on addresses.” 3
> A reference to the reported quarrel between Farook and a Jewish co-worker, who was killed in the attack. (Many news sources report the event as a party. Imho this story of a quarrel is garbled news / time shift / made up. They were all listening to a lecture.) Note, the SUV was seen and described: when they drove up / while it was parked / when they fled.
Around or after 14.00. “Based on a tip provided by one of Farook’s neighbors, officers went to the perpetrators’ Redlands home on North Center Street for surveillance but had to give chase when the perpetrators fled the house.” 2
My transcript police chief: “Tips .. took us to a house in Redlands where we made contact with the suspect vehicle we were looking for, that resulted in a pursuit, which ultimately came back into the city of San Bernardino.” 4
“Police get a tip and go to Farook and Malik’s Redlands townhouse. While there, they see a black SUV speed by and chase it back to San Bernardino.” 5
“Based on a tip, police head to a house in Redlands. They identify a black SUV they had been searching for, and a high speed pursuit ensued heading back into the city of San Bernardino.” (Breitbart, no link.)
“As officers approach the residence to watch it, a vehicle fitting the same profile of the suspects’ SUV leaves, and the officers begin a pursuit.” (LA Times, no link.)
Distance SB Redlands = 18 kms (from google), actually the distance home / conference center looks about 10 kms.
The police chief omits saying it was their home. All this is mighty confused, and deals more with the SUV than with their home. It sounds like they were looking for a particular car and had not at all gone to the home of the couple previous. Therefore the ‘tips’…
What can be cobbled together? (others sources are similar, etc.)? Farooks carried out the shooting, left at 11.05, 11.10 (say), drove away in a described SUV, were not followed or elsewise tracked, chased, stopped, etc. They went straight home, or arrived home before around 14.30. I couldn’t find any solid, conclusive news about their movements during the AWOL time. The police arrive at x time (latest 14.50), but the Farooks somehow escape the house, jump in the SUV and speed off. Or they came home when the house was under surveillance, noticed, drove away. Then, the tip about the car doesn’t work.
If Farook had been fingered as a perp shortly after the shooting, surely his address was known, even if his mother was the legal tenant, if that was so? It would be the first place to go (at 11.20, 11.30), and would not require ‘tips’? The videos of the interior do look like their home (e.g. photos of them, obvious presence of a baby, etc.)
15.05. Reports of a police chase of a black SUV, twitter. (no link)
15.00 – 15.30. Shoot out on San Bernadino Avenue, 2.7 km. from the Conference Center. (multiple sources, different times.) Both are killed.
around 18.00 ? First *public* naming of Farook. Wife named at presser 22.00. (As far as I can tell.)
1. WaPo http://tinyurl.com/petlrb6
2. Wiki. http://tinyurl.com/qy5bwsu Is quoted because it tries to stich a narrative out of multiple MSM news.
3. LA Times http://tinyurl.com/zgjgdwj
4. Time.com http://tinyurl.com/hkca8p9
5. SB Sun. http://tinyurl.com/qjgwmb7
6. maybe 3, ‘credible’ reports of 3 shooters, all male, tall, and in black tactical gear. (? no link, it is another issue.) See Sam D at 4 for ex.
Posted by: Noirette | Dec 17 2015 16:39 utc | 37
|
